More No-Gun-Zone Backlash: Open Carry Events Going Too Far?

No Guns & Coffee. Or Burritos.

It is a story that we have seen play out before, most notably at Starbucks but also at numerous other businesses. Like Starbucks, Chipotle has largely deferred to the law of the land when it came to carrying firearms in their restaurants – if not prohibited by law, the stores would generally not put a specific policy in place to ban the practice. And, like Starbucks, some patrons took things a bit far. Now, after a push from anti-gun zealots “Moms Demand Action,” Chipotle restaurants are asking customers to leave their guns at home… just like Starbucks.

It starts out ordinarily enough. People who choose to carry a firearm simply have another business which they could patronize without having to change their carry habits or unnecessarily handle their firearms un-holstering and re-holstering just to grab lunch. Once word spreads that the business is “firearms friendly” certain people start making a bigger deal out of it; purposefully drawing attention to their sidearms, taking selfies or pictures of each other with their firearms in the store. Then come the celebrations – the Second Amendment rallies where a crowd of people with long guns slung across their shoulders, signs raised above their heads and then… #hashtags. #LookIHaveAGunInThisRestaurant.

The issue of gun ownership or gun rights has become one of the most contentious debates in the country. Chipotle has never taken a position on this issue, as we focus instead on our mission to change the way people think about and eat fast food.

Recently participants from an “open carry” demonstration in Texas brought guns (including military-style assault rifles) into one of our restaurants, causing many of our customers anxiety and discomfort. Because of this, we are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

The statement claimed that the request was made because “the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers.” A business’s purpose is to make money and it makes sense for them to put a policy in place to prevent behavior that drives paying customers (and, thus, profit) away.

Companies have teams of people to think things through before they make a decision like this and when a No Guns policy is put in place it is usually for one of two reasons: they either want to take an anti-gun stance (which Chipotle claims not to be doing) or they think that they will lose more business from the people being scared away by the guns than from the people who won’t shop there due to the policy.

Working from the theory that the latter is the reason for the new policy, one reasonable thing to do is to “vote with your wallet.” There are a number of resources available, from cards that you can give to a proprietor to “no guns = no money” shirts and more. It is good to support businesses that support rights, but is important to let a business know why they have lost your business as well. A polite phone call or unarmed visit to speak with a business owner who does not allow firearms on his premises is a good way to share your concerns about his “criminal protection zone.”

It should also be noted that the spokesperson for Chipotle did not outright call the new policy a ban on firearms in their restaurants. It remains to be seen whether Chipotle restaurants will be posted or not and state laws vary on whether or not postings even have the force of law. Despite how bastardized the term “common sense” has become thanks to gun control zealots who use it without a trace of irony, common sense is exactly what should be exercised in situations like this. RKBA supporters should obey state and local laws as well as respecting the desire of business owners not to take their money.

what do ppl think will happen when they walk into a restarant with a ar or ak rifle. do they watch news? what do they think the rest of the customers will be thinking? uh… a shooter? the ppl in the pics dont just have rifles on their shoulders. like the guy in the pic here he is holding it at ready. big diff b/w carrying a gun for just in case and walking around like that!

The policy sucks but a business is either going to let guns in or not and this biz is not letting them in now. Maybe they were just looking for a reason to make the policy. Whatever. Either don’t go there or go there and carry concealed or not at all. If these two wanted to make a statement they probably could have OC hand guns instead and caused less problems.

Some of the issues that sparked this decision from Chipotle happened in Texas. It should be noted that if a Chipotle there properly posts the restaurant and someone CCWs there, they would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Signs DO have the force of law there. Further, as to openly carrying a pistol instead of a rifle, Texas law currently forbids OCing a pistol while allowing OC of a rifle.

I own several handguns and several rifles. I usually shoot them at a local gin range which will go unnamed because I don’t wish to subject them to any backlash. When we enter said gun range we are required to keep our weapons in carrying boxes and/or cases. We are not allowed to remove the weapons until at the firing line and only then can they be loaded. If the two morons in the photo walked in carrying loaded weapons they’d probably be banned from returning.

if a gun range with the normal clientele and nra affiliations won’t allow open carry of loaded weapons why should any other business or residence be expected to?

this whole debate is ridiculous and shows how extreme and out of touch a small minority of radical gun owners are. The vast majority of Americans including gun owners do not want public places saturated with gun toting loonies like the handsome couple in the picture above. Nor do they wish to be educated about second amendment tights by such overtly intimidating tactics.

No, the idiots above aren’t liberal plants. May we infer that this lame accusation at least implies the author believes there are reasonable restrictions to second amendment rights. For all our sakes and on several different levels I hope so.